A Study on Implementation System of 'Design Charrette' for Sustainable Community Design -Focused on Sensitive Urban Infill Charrette in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
생태학적 복잡성을 내포한 지속가능한 도시연계 방식은 경제, 사회, 문화, 환경 관련 다양한 문제들과 정책들이 물리적 계획과 연동되어야 한다. 그러나 우리나라에서는 아직도 폐쇄적인 분야별 친환경 계획들의 조합으로 진행된다. 이에 대한 대안인 디자인샤렛은 지속가능한 도시만들기, 즉 융복합적 커뮤니티계획 수법으로 고안되었다. 확산적 논제들을 드러내고 다수의 이해관계자들이 참여와 협업을 통해 통합된 계획안을 제안하는 방식이다. 본 연구는 친환경 '지침' 만들기 측면으로 한정된 우리나라에서 지속가능한 도시만들기 방식의 한계를 인지하고 대안으로서 디자인샤렛을 분석하고 제안하는데 목적을 둔다. 이를 위해 2장에서 도입배경, 효용성, 실행절차를 중심으로 디자인샤렛의 정의를 살펴본다. 3장에는 디자인샤렛이 활성화된 캐나다의 관련 프로젝트들을 흥해 내용과 체계, 과정들을 분석하여 특성을 도출한다. 마지막으로는 체계적이고 완성도 있게 진행되었다고 평가되는 브리티시 컬럼비아주 서레이시 센스티브 어반 인필 샤렛을 자세히 분석하여 조직운영, 내용 및 방향, 과정과 결과들의 연결관계인 실행체계를 도출할 것이다. 결국, 본 연구는 한국에 디자인샤렛을 도입하기 위한 기초연구로서 추후 한국형 방식을 개발하는 기준이 된다. Urban design claiming the notion of 'Sustainability', which inevitably includes ecological complexity, is normally geared towards the reflection of environmentally-friendly technical guidelines in the existing planning process. Although physical planning should be combined with economic, social, cultural, environmental issues, and policies, it is conducted conventionally as the sum of the closed sectoral approaches of planning. To overcome this limit, Design Charrette was invented for sustainable urban design or community design, which should consider the complexity of diverse issues. This design process unveils complicated and divergent problems and a variety of stakeholders participate in the integrated design simultaneously and cooperatively. Because Design Charrette must also be a process of agreement, it is used for sustainable community design. The aim of this study was to introduce Design Charrette as an alternative of Korean sustainable urban design, which is regarded as 'making guidelines related to green principles'. For such a purposes, the definition and differentiation of Design Charrette will be explained with an analysis of the introduction background, benefit and procedure. The contents, system and process of Design Charrette will be analyzed through case studies in Canada, where this method of design is widespread. In the last part, the implementation system (the comprehensive system of organization / content and direction of planning / process and output) will be deduced after concentrated analysis of one respected case, 'Sensitive Urban Infill Charrette' of the City of Surrey. This implementation system will be a crucial reference to develop Korean Design Charrette.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".